What do today’s proposed policy changes mean for the future of planning?

The government made some very significant policy announcements today, concerning brownfield development, permitted development rights and the London Plan.

Here, Grant Leggett, Executive Director of Boyer gives his views on the announcements.

I am very encouraged by today’s announcement – in fact I think it should go further.

Prioritising brownfield development

The government is absolutely right to super-charge brownfield development – and not solely because it delivers on ministers’ political objective of resisting greenfield development. ?We need to develop on both green and brownfield land in order to meet the nation’s needs.

Christopher Katkowski KC’s review of the London Plan is an excellent assessment of planning in London and is relevant to urban areas elsewhere in the country.

The proposal that a presumption in favour of brownfield development should apply where housing delivery is below 95% is an excellent recommendation, and not just for London.

Permitted development rights consultation

I also welcome the consultation on permitted development rights (PDR), but in reality PDR provides limited opportunity to deliver new homes. Added to that, permitted development rights, in my view, are counter to good town planning – but that is not to say that PDR doesn’t have a role in brownfield development.

The consultation is interesting politically, because it appears to take a shot at D6 of the London Plan. Policy D6 – and certainly its accompanying Guidance – is too restrictive and bears a lot of responsibility for the under-delivery of homes in London and I am sure that all developers in London will be pleased to see it weakened.

A need for pro-change politics

I am not advocating for quality or standards to be watered down but planning policy, specifically in London, all too frequently stymies decent development unnecessarily - losing sight of the fact that we have a housing crisis, and London is at the sharp end of that crisis.

Previous iterations of the NPPF have been pro-change, recognising that development will inevitably change the character of an area and that can be a positive. I would welcome a strengthening of that sentiment, to the extent that taller buildings which delivered much-need density should be encouraged.

It has been widely reported that SME developers in particular struggle to get planning consent for brownfield sites. Policy H2 of the London Plan introduces a 'presumption in favour of small housing developments', specifically a ‘positive and pragmatic’ approach. But I’m currently testing this at appeal and I don’t believe that the Inspector’s view, like the local authority’s before it, is suitably positive and pragmatic.

My belief is that the NPPF need to go further in this regard, because small sites are notoriously difficult for a plethora of reasons – and yet they are fundamental to brownfield development in urban areas.

The threshold for call-ins and the role of regional planning

Another proposal within today’s raft of policy announcements is that the threshold for referring schemes to the Mayor of London should be increased. If the GLA and the Mayor championed good development and raised standards in development I would welcome their overview. But unfortunately regional planning in London has achieved the opposite: it has interfered with, rather than supported strategic growth. And so I support that threshold being increased – because, again, it should make the process slightly less burdensome for smaller developers – those who we will depend on to deliver brownfield housing on smaller sites, through permitted development rights or otherwise.

Planning and democracy

It’s interesting to reflect on Michael Gove’s comments at the weekend, that an inability to buy a home may undermine democracy among younger people. Because as we have seen in London with GLA call-ins (not to mention planning committees up and down the country), too much democracy is at the heart of the housing crisis.